Interview with a former Romanian MiG-29 pilot

A former Romanian MiG-29 pilot has kindly accepted an interview for my blog. V. flew in MiG-21 and MiG-23 before moving on to the MiG-29, and participated in the LanceR and Sniper upgrade projects. I would like to thank him here for his time.

1) Hello V., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the Romanian Air Force?

Very briefly I started my activity in the RoAF in 1978 as a student of Air Force Academy ( at that time S Of Av- Air Force Officer School) graduated as fighter pilot in 1982 and retired from the Air Force in 2000. In my career during the RoAF I flew MiG 21 M , MiG 23 MF, MiG 21 LanceR  and last 10 years the MiG 29 A. Also in the last years of activity I was involved in the 2 upgrades programme of the RoAF – LanceR for MiG 21 and Sniper for MiG 29.

2)  Did you get trained in the Soviet Union before flying the MiG-29? If so, how did you find the training?

No I was not trained in USSR I was part of the first group of pilots that transit on 29 in Romania at the end of 1989 and beginning of 1990. Our teachers were our pilot colleagues that transit in USSR  in the Autumn of 1989.

3) What was your first impression of the MiG-29?  What were the main advantages when compared to previous generation fighters in Romania?

Up to MiG29 I was trained on the MiG 21 and MiG 23. Compared with those 2 aircraft this one was an advance aircraft. First and most important thing was the small to none restrictions regarded the engines , airframe etc. First good  impression I took was the cockpit that was not painted in that green as in 21 & 23 and the generous space from inside the cockpit. The instruments were grouped much more convenient and easy to reach , the HUD was impressive and the Caution panels were all gathered together . I was more than pleased to see this “ revolution ” in the cockpit. Than during first flights I realized other advantages like good and easy handling characteristics in any of the situation of flight ( it was like a glider when you came to land) , good acceleration ( from Idle to Military or from Idle to Full Afterburner ), impressive thrust/ weight ratio compared with previous fighters, extremely good visibility from inside the cockpit, very different armament philosophy and weapon system and many more.

4) What do you think were the strong and weak points of the MiG-29?

At the level of 1990 the strong points were the thrust/weight ratio used for engagements, the IR missile – R73, the good radar N019 and it`s mode of operation, the small rate of turn & radius, the SLEM ( the monocle on the helmet for guiding the IR missiles) and easy operation of the modes & submodes of the weapon system. The weak points were short flight range & distance, not so accurate navigation system, big fuel consumption

5) One of the issues with early MiG-29s was the lack of TWS in the radar (Track while scan mode). This meant that you lost situational awareness when launching a radar guided missile (R-27R). Can you confirm this? Was there any technique or equipment that could mitigate this problem?

Yes you are right. But coming from old fighters 21& 23 this one was much more advanced for us. And the mode of operations of the radar were not so advance to have RWS /TWS or others. We only had STT after lock-on. Very simple. As you probably know we relly on the GCI for all of our missions doesn`t matter if it is a high altitude intercept using the radar or low intercept using our IRST -KOLS till the moment we “ see” the target we were guided from the ground . The term SA wasn`t part of our terminology and we don`t aware about it. And the way we were trained was completely unrealistic. We use the aircraft mainly for interceptions at all altitudes and for these types of engagements the aircraft was more than good.

6) Could you describe the N019 operating modes? Did you combine modes with wingmen to be more effective?

The radar modes were : head-on, pursuit, automat and dog fight and the scales on the HUD for them changed accordingly – 150 , 50 , 100 and 10 km. We doesn`t  developed specific way to use combined modes with wingmen because the radar wasn`t so advanced ( as I noticed later

7) The N019 radar had good range characteristics. At what maximum distance you could detect a fighter? Was there much difference between MiG-29, MiG-23 or MiG-21 due to different radar cross section (or any other fighter)?

Well there are many things to say about it. I`m not sure that the good range were so good….but compare with previous obsolete radars used in 21 & 23 ( RP21 & SAFIR ) this one was far better in terms of acquisition/lock-on ranges. I remembered a sortie above the see ( were the noise is much bigger than above the land and the discovery range should be affected by the sea waves ) head-on at an altitude of 11000 m when I discovered the target , another MiG 29 at approximately 80 km. In the book it is written that the maximum acquisition distance at this altitude could be around 70 km… but above the sea this distance is reduced by 10-15% . Normal discovery ranges at high altitudes were 40-60 km and at low altitudes (below 3000 m ) were 30-40 km ( head -on) .In pursuit mode these figures drop to 25 – 40 km respectively 20-30 km bellow 3000 m . Compared with MiG23 armed with R23 the acquisition & lock on were almost the same. Compared to 21 it was completely different from the head-on hemisphere, to the presentation mode on the HUD to the end of the mission which on 29 and only on it was almost always done in tracking mode with simulated firing of the on-board gun after the intercept. Evan when we use like “targets” the 23 the situation was almost the same. We never used ( at least till I was in the RoAF) like targets the 21 because we don`t have it in our Base inventory. But I remembered that at least once I was target for the guys from Borcea Air Base who that year were preparing for a real firing at heights of over 14,000 metres (which, between you and me, was not at all realistic).

8) MiG-29 9.12A are known to have a short range. Did you find it enough for Romania’s air space?

Yes or no. It depends.

We have been deployed a few times to another airfield to do live firing in other air-to-ground range but not so far from MK (nickname 57th Air Base). No more than 150 km maximum. From there we had to find the range somewhere further east about 80 km from the take-off site. For this simple exercise gas was enough. But in combat conditions under the pressure of the situation and the air reality plus the quality of the GCI's guidance I think we would have looked more often at the fuel gauge. And let's not forget that on the manual the aircraft is declared as a front fighter.

In the internal tanks we could take around 4300 liters of fuel or 5800 liters with external tank ( 1500 liters, one single tank placed between the 2 engines under the belly and in this situation until the tank was jettison we could not use the gun!!).

9) At what distances you could engage objectives with the R-27R? Was the procedure more simple than in the MiG-23MF with R-23?

Nothing was like in the manual….where the lock-on distance was 40 km. In reality the distance ( head-on ) could be even greater let`s say more than 50 km for firing it. But as you know there are plenty of factors that could dictate these figures. And as I told you before .The procedure is almost the same at 23 because both missiles are SARH . You have to illuminate the target till the impact  moment or you loose it. Not so safety in nowadays.

10) How useful did you find the IRST? At what sort of distances could you engage targets? Was it very dependent on weather conditions?

I use to have something similar but not so advanced at 23 but I rather rare  used it because wasn`t so good.

This “new” IRST model consisted of 2 parts in the same enclosure. A sensor that "senses" the heat emitted by the engine and a laser rangefinder that gives you the distance to the target. In the manual it is written that it is effective on a target with a RCS=3 m² starting with 15 km and maximum presentation angle 3/4  from behind  but in reality the discovery distance was less then 10 km and it depends on many factors. And yes it depends on the weather (and not only ). I remembered a low altitude night  intercept ( 200-500 m ) using only passive acquisition system above the land in north of Dobrogea ( area where we was located ) in a late autumn when the paysans put fire on the vegetation on the ground and my target flew above these millions of false targets .Because it was almost impossible to discriminate between so many targets I asked my fellow to engage afterburner in order to see him….

11) Soviet and Warsaw Pact air forces used a Lazur GCI system to assist in intercepting objectives. Did you ever use it? How useful did you find it if so? Did it improve the situation awareness?

Starting with MiG21 we had on bord the LAZUR . At Mig21 I never used it in 23 it was supposed to used it 2 times but the system failed both times and wasn`t at all reliable. Actually the LAZUR system  was packed in , if I remembered well, 7 or 8 trailers and rarely it happens all of this to be  functional. But after ` 90 Romanian develop our own system if I remembered well named C802 and I used it several times and it worked perfect and of course was only 1 or 2 trailers. It is difficult to asses if this improved the SA or not ( more than that at that time we didn`t know what SA means).The system worked guided by a ground navigator and all the symbols and signs appear on the HUD making interception relatively easy. But if you didn't “see” the target, things got complicated…

12) Early RD-33 engine variants are famous because they are smoky. Did you find this to be a disadvantage when operating the Fulcrum?

Not really for peace time. But in a war during a real fight I guess this can be very dangerous. All you have to do is to see the trail smoke and you know where the enemy is….

13) How many hours did you fly per year in the MiG-29? Was it complemented with flights on the L-39 or other trainers?

We flew relatively less than 50 hours a year after a training course that was "borrowed" from the Russians and was not the most convenient for us. At one point the spare parts situation forced the command to make innovations so that we could keep our flight training. This led to the situation of completing flights on the L-39 aircraft.

For me it was a little better than for my colleagues left in the regiment. I had to requalify on the MiG21 in order to participate in its upgrade program. During this time I was also doing theoretical training for the first series of pilots who were going to switch to the upgraded 21.

MiG-29UB.

For the remaining MiG29 pilots, a program was developed to maintain flight training using the much larger flying resource of L-39 aircraft in the school. So they had to move from the regiment to Boboc (where the student planes were) and fly there. The situation with spare parts began to become troublesome and we were approaching the impossibility of using the planes because the Russians, seeing our westward orientation, did not deliver the orders placed to complete our stocks of spare parts. Slowly the planes began to suffer from the lack of spare parts and one by one they were grounded. To this was added the complete lack of vision of some Air Force commanders who did not know how to manage this situation differently. It was possible to use another source of supply at that time, namely from the Ukrainians who also operated this aircraft (slightly improved version 9-13) but who had the necessary experience in their factories to provide us with something. It was a period full of internal strife in which the pilots of the 29 felt betrayed by those who were supposed to ensure their continued training. The accession to NATO changed even more the perspective of the country and the lack of professionalism of those in charge hastened even more the "death" of this plane.

Looking back I'm not very happy with how our bosses handled the situation with a relatively new aircraft that was heading for certain "death".

14) Romania operated MiG-29s when Soviet Union collapsed, were there any issues with technical support/spare parts in those years?

As already explained in the previous question the stocks in the  "pharmacies" of the new planes were slowly running out and although there were responsible people in the regiment who tried to keep this under control most of the time the higher echelon did not bother to help us much. It was beyond us to do anything but complain. After 2000 (the year I retired from aviation) the situation started to become critical and one by one the planes stopped flying due to lack of spare parts. The agony lasted 2-3 years after which the last survivor had to remain on the ground. Sad. This only proves the poor commitment of the military-political leadership to properly manage the defence capability of the country.

Low pass at Borcea airbase..

15) In the 1990s Aerostar, Elbit (Israel) y DASA (Germany) developed the MiG-29 Sniper. What were the main advantages when compared to the 9.12A version?

I know a lot about this subject. When I participated in the MiG 21 avionics upgrade I realized how powerful a 29 could be with a custom avionics. And slowly, slowly, I worked with other pilots and engineers to put together an operational specification of how we wanted this aircraft to be and how it would meet the demands of modern warfare. Thus the Sniper was born. The first thing we wanted was to increase the flying time and range which would be done in the same style as Germany had done while they had the aircraft in their inventory. That is, we added to the aircraft's fuel system two additional tanks under the planes. Let's not forget that Germany after reunification kept this aircraft in its inventory until the Eurofighter appeared and more than that together with the MiG factory they brought the aircraft through a modernization program to NATO standards. Then we really started to replace everything in terms of avionics from the 1553B serial bus multi modular computer to the cockpit architecture that looks exactly like a multirole fighter should look like. And here we have put the dot on the "i" because it is known that the version flown by us and those that appeared later, i.e. 9-13, were not multirole aircraft. Or the concept of fighting a modern war obliges the participants to have such aircraft in their arsenal and to be able to change the mission in flight at any time by switching from air-to-air to air-to-ground or reconnaissance, SEAD, etc.

In 2000 Aerostar, Elbit and DASA Aerospace started the Sniper modernization program and in a very short time completed a mock-up that was not fully functional but at least in the cockpit was already a different aircraft. The same Jewish pilot that I trained in 1995 to fly the 21 I trained now for the 29 and this man has proved to be a great pilot and he has shown the qualities of the "new" planes that he flew and showed to those present. In the operational specification we focused on precision navigation ( we added an inertial navigation system based on laser gyroscopes and we would also have integrated a GPS receiver), correct identification, advanced frequency hopping radio communication systems, high performance radar warning receiver, a glass cockpit, HOTAS, etc. and we were thinking how to change the radar and integrate active guided air-to-air missiles as well as intelligent air-to-ground munitions and much more... If this program had come to life the aircraft would have become a formidable multirole aircraft increasing its value several times over- but it was not to be.

16) Was there any extra equipment considered (radar)? Perhaps later on if acquired?

The proposal was for the radar to be Pulse Doppler, all aspect, look-down shoot-down capabilities one like ELTA ELM 2032 fire control radar or better.

17) Why do you think it was not acquired by Romanian Ministry of Defence? Were there any potential issues with RSK MiG not supplying spares?

The biggest mistake was that we did not know how to manage the advantages given by this aircraft in close air combat. Our bosses were afraid of something happening but aviation by excellence is a dangerous craft. It's all about knowing how to educate pilots so that they don't look for the sensational elsewhere...The commanders who should have taken advantage of the “ youth” of this plane (don't forget that we got it at the end of 1989) and thought of solutions to exploit its potential and after the former USSR disappeared they indulged in aviation games...The transition to the West with the entry into NATO should not have ended the career of this plane so early. The sad thing is that even now I am not sure that what the Romanian Air Force is doing is the right thing. In the past the commanders ( with small exceptions ) did not think globally and in perspective...they just used to not register with serious problems.... totally unproductive for an aviation. According to the agreement with Elbit we were supposed to upgrade 6 MiG29 aircraft which would surely have made this aircraft the most feared MiG29...exactly what the MiG 21 LanceR was after modernization....

Sniper cockpit.

I think the real reason was that there was no one left to fight for it in the Air Force and the budget allocated for this modernization was never known . Simply after a lot of effort and money spent to bring a functional mock up to flying condition someone decided it was no longer worth the effort....Whether it was the right choice or not we will never know.  

18) What was your most challenging sortie in the MiG-29?

Perhaps not one, but several missions stick in my mind, the first being a deployment exercise at the Boboc Aviation Academy airfield at the beginning of the student flying year in 1992. We were a formation of 12 aircraft, and visibility was below critical.....luckily we had our people on the approach system who guided us well on course...otherwise we would have turned around and left the students with a bad taste.... Then there is another exercise done I think in 1993 when a formation of 12 aircraft ( 6 29 aircraft and 6 23 aircraft ) we were invited to fly in parade formation on the 100th anniversary of the Military Academy....The man directing us vertically was the flight deputy and he was perched on a block of flats. The misfortune was that the one who was reading the introductory word got the sheets he was reading mixed up and from about 2 km away the one on the block told us to make a 360° turn there over Bucharest with the formation....And from that moment the madness started...Being above in the last formation I saw how desperate they were trying to keep the formation . And during this 360° turn the radio controller on the roof of the block suddenly tells us now come back to me ...And that wasn't the end of the story...My wingman on the right declares that on the warning panel "Engine vibration" lit up ...that means he had to put one of the throttles at idle and if the lamp goes out leave the engine on this mode and fly the rest of the mission with only one engine...and we were 200 km from MK base ....

19) Is there any anecdote you would like to share before finishing the interview?

I'm not sure I know that. But as an anecdote you might take it when one of my engines shut-down during a high altitude intercept at 14,500 m...and I asked the flight controller for permission to continue flying...the aircraft was 67 red...which later became Sniper....

Finally, let me thank you for bringing back almost many fond memories .....                    

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former M60 tanker
- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Interview with a former M60 tanker

A former M60A3 tanker kindly accepted an interview for the blog. I. served in the US Army in the final stage of the Cold War, and later on in the different conflicts that followed. I would like to use this opportunity to thank him for his time.

1) Hello I., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the US Army?

I entered the US Army in 1983 under the Officer Candidate Program. I went through basic enlisted combat training and then went to FT Benning Officer Candidate School where I was trained in Officer Basic and Infantry Leadership skills. After Completing I was selected for the US Cavalry Officers Basic Course starting in August 1984,

Being trained in the transitional period of our Armor/Cavalry branch where we had new systems coming into service and older systems in service depending on location assigned. I was trained on system and command and control of M113s, FISTVs, Bradly Fighting Vehicle/Cavalry Version.  Also familiarized with the M60A1, Sheridan, M1 and M60A3 (more extensively as it was the most numeric vehicle in service)and related service and support vehicles and capabilities. I was assigned to West Germany in February 1985 . I attended the Infantry Mortar Leaders course as well.

In total I served 28 years in US Army as an Armor /Cavalry officer. Served in West Germany, then Germany (After Unification), Southwest Asia (Multiple Tours and Years). Former Yugoslavia with a light Cavalry Reconnaissance element and another four combat tours in Iraq. Also commanded Joint Units and worked with NATO command and Multinational forces regarding doctrine and combat operations. 

In between assignments I attended additional courses Armor Officers Advanced Course, Combined Arms Services Staff School, Command and General Staff, Joint Forces Staff College. Naval Post Graduate School, Army War College. Royal Military Academy Senior Leaders Courses. Had a long and successful 28 year career retired as a senior field grade  Armor Officer , was further specialised in Joint, Multinational operations and strategic planning.

2) You served in a M60 Patton. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?

I found the vehicle to be a dependable and easy to use. The M60A3 had an excellent Laser Range finder and thermal sights, and gun sights. The gun stabilisation system was also very good. While the M1 Abrams is often credited for being the first US tank in service with a digital ballistics computer, a laser rangefinder, a passive thermal imaging system, and the ability to fire on the move at high speeds with great accuracy, the M60A3 actually had all of these capabilities before the M1 even entered production

Although the recommended firing of a moving target on the move was discouraged in training, an experienced Gunner could engage, and we did hit targets. Weak points may be an experience of the Israelis that the cupola for TC was a liability for it high visibility, The TC were subject to decapitation(but most fought with hatches open) better to acquire and engage targets. They did not have the thermals or laser in the A1 version though. We were top priority Tier I and were afforded all the repair parts as needed. We were always fully combat loaded due to being deployed at any moment to the border area to defend against invasion.

The M85 was sighted by many as a problem weapon, but it was lighter and more compact than the M2 Browning. I discovered it was subject to jamming if over cleaned, compared to M2 an occasional cleaning and simply putting oil on the parts in use kept it firing and no jams. It also had a higher rate of fire than the Browning machinegun. While the M1 Abrams is often credited for being the first US tank in service with a digital ballistics computer, a laser rangefinder, a passive thermal imaging system, and the ability to fire on the move at high speeds with great accuracy, the M60A3 actually had all of these capabilities before the M1 even entered production

3) When training, what was the typical distance to the target and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

Speed between 12-15 miles on tank engagements. As I said earlier the tables was firing on the move at stopped targets,Tanks ,BMPs, Personnel ,even helicopters(these aviation elements only on simulator).  We did fire moving targets at a short halt, but we did fire moving targets on the move. Range was also always terrain dependent  but average between 1200-3000 meters with main gun.

4) How was the night firing conducted (flares/projector)? What was the maximum distance at which you could fire?  

With the added DU round that was put into service in our combat load in May of 1985, the range of the round and successful armor penetration was expanded significantly. But the terrain in our area of hills and valleys made the ranges more limited. Our main gun engagements on our  terrain averaged between 1200-2500 meters, even target hit at 3000 m and further out was greatly improved with the computer systems ,optics and ammunition and could easily been done. If used in a desert terrain it could exceed these ranges, but not the case for training in the area we were to defend.

5) Other M60 veterans stated that for night fighting they preferred flares over the IR projector. What is your opinion?

Not used or needed on the M60A3, even though we did training on occasion with artillery flares , they were unnecessary with the excellent thermal sights for acquiring and engaging targets. We were trained to operate and utilize the cover of darkness as an advantage for battle. The starlight scope was used by the driver, not IR ,and it was very good after you trained them to understand the dept /distance  in night driving with scope. 

6) In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

The main component that failed was the heater! Not good in cold weather. I anticipated this need and trained my tank crews in the repair and provided replacement parts. We would collect scrapped heaters and repair as spares for quick substitution. A great trading tool for things you wanted from other tank units that did not have the extras and were literally in the cold in winter. The other parts were always sourced and provided as we were a ist Tier unit and always required to be ready to move into combat operation at a moment’s notice. As I sated before we were on the point of the spear in defending  West Germany and carried full combat loads 0f tank and machine gun munitions at all times ,except during target training, uncommon and not the case for all other units that would not have the ammunition in tanks until deployed to a war zone or imminent war.

7) What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/HESH/Smoke)? Did you have specific rounds for certain targets (APFSDS for T-64/72/80)?

Carried 63 rounds of ammunition with 26 stored in the forward part of the hull, to the left and right of the driver's position, 13 in the turret for ready use, 21 in the turret bustle and the remaining three under the gun. Even though we were familiarized with the older behive round, the composition was of Sabot about 60% and remainder Heat rounds. No smoke required as we had Smoke generators and were also equipped with grenade launchers on the hull.  With the DU round none of the tanks fielded by the Russians including the still to be fielded T80, could be easily penetrated and destroyed. The DU round paper specifications on range and penetration were always underestimated for the  public unclassified data on all USA and NATO papers. I have had many discussions with Russian trolls trying to argue that the 105 gun would not penetrate the Soviet tanks, yet we still use the system on lighter tank variants, i.e. the Stryker and Centauro. Where as the Russians ,even today ,exaggerate the combat and protection capabilities of their systems. Much has been tested in active combat and proven to fall short of their hype.

8) What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you went through the different bins?

I do not recall the exact rate, I know that we were always trained to load and fire faster than any automatic loader on a Russian tank. I recall in the engagement tables for Platoon fires on Tank Table Twelve were trained in a full scale operation to engage a motorized tank/rifle regiment. We first engaged with artillery which I called in at long range, after that we fired about fifty percent of basic tank load (about 120 rounds)on range of tank and BMP targets in a few minutes,and quickly cross loaded ammunition in a short interval of minutes to equally distribute rounds. We then reengaged and destroyed most targets and then fire White phosphorus at on coming infantry from grenade launcchers and called in Attack helicopters as we displace. Of note my four tank Platoon won the TOP GUN Award  First  Armored Division in early 1986 after this engagement. The observers after reviewing all th tank units that were tested stated that we had fired upon and hit/destroyed more targets with our Platoon then the Berlin Tank Brigade! My soldiers were exceptionally trained, even though most were less experienced when assigned to me a year prior.

9) What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Was the mobility suitable? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

We covered routs of up to 10-12 hours per day. Average speed would be about 25 and up to 30 miles 48 Kilometers per hour. We conducted many long road marches across Autobahns and country roads as part of our training. This was done in all weather conditions and even included bridging exercises for tanks to drive over.

Our tanks were always well maintained in my unit and most of our Division as well,so in general did not encounter real maintenance issues in operations. The more common wear would be to the tank tracks and mainly the Rubber pads that would wear from driving and need replacement. In open terrain off road or in hills an occasional thrown track(many times the cause was poor driving or TC controlling driver). I had not had thrown tracks on my own tank ,because I learned from others in Armor school and in field what not to do!  In the rear , our  engine packs would be pulled/replaced when  they were getting close to end in life of engine. I can say our maintenance teams and M88s did a great  job in support to us in the field and at home.

10) The M60 is one of the largest (and most comfortable) tanks. Do you think it was worth it (it was also a larger target)?

It was an excellent defensive tank and was a bit larger and more comfortable inside. I feel even today the trained crews and this tank would have fared well against an attacking Soviet army and inflicted severe damage to the enemy. Even the newer variants offered in Isreal/Egypt and Jordan, it probably would with a well trained combined arms team fight well. (Of Course the M1 is still a super tank with its additional upgrades even on todays battlefield !)

11) The M19 commander cupola is one element which has not proved popular, and some operators removed it. What do you think?

As noted earlier, the Cupola was deleted by the Israeli’s after the number of decapitations of TC in combat. Two reasons, One it is higher up on hull and additionally the Israeli’s found that fighting unbuttoned allowed the TC to acquire and engage more targets than inside. Especially in the M60A1 Rise passive version which they used. With thermal sites and also the Starlight scope for the TC 50 calibre M85 version, you could with training successfully acquire and engage enemy targets.  It was an older design and still provided protection against small arms and artillery. With the change to an above mounted 50 calibre on the M1 variants the cupola , is no longer was considered need with the optics inside and also to give better protection to the TC in the hull. That the  cupola could be an easier target and can be hit by RPG or main gun round, in forested woods or darkness probably not as big a danger in our time and location .

12) Did you practice NBC scenarios? What was the procedure? How did it affect the crew performance?

We always practiced NBC training and also decontamination as part of all of our exercises. We conducted gunnery and operations with full NBC equipment and masks, and although less comfortable than without, we were able to do all tasks to standard. This was an anticipated and potential use by Soviet forces, especially after the Arab Israeli war  in  1973 when the captured newer  Russian armoured equipment was discovered to have NBC seals for the vehicle and crew protection.

13) During the Cold War the US Army would organise REFORGER exercises to deploy troops in Europe. Did you participate in one? How was your experience?

We were always involved in REFORGER(Return of Forces to Germany). It was in February and allowed off road movement and large scale operations and exercises. We had one where the snow and ice was melting prematurely in 1986 and although we were not to go off road in many areas to avoid manuever damage, we were able to complete the exercise successfully. My own experience was pleasant, hard training but good results and spent time in the country and stops in towns, even for a quick run in a bakery or grocery store!

14) The Patton family has a reputation for being an ideal tank for a conscript Army, being sturdy and reliable. Would you agree? How long do you think it takes to train a crew?

I believe the term conscript or draft army is irrelevant, especially in this later variants like the M60A3. I can state that they intelligence requirements for an armor crewmen is much higher than that for a infantry unit due to the technical level of the equipment. Since the principle positions that a new soldier learning tank systems is assigned first as loader,then driver, later if they remain in service tank gunner and after that Tank Commander. The last two position require a full comprehension and ability that is acquired by those who serve more than a year and a half. Since we in the USA ended the Draft in 1975.  All the servicemembers that qualify as tank crewmen were volunteers and had a higher level of technical skills . When the M60A3 all the crews would have been volunteers, and also compared to the rise passive systems the A3 simplified the acquisition and firing process for the gunner and TC. In foreign armies where the conscript is or was still used the need to understand the first two key functions in the tank are fairly easy to lean and a capable gunner and TC must be further trained.

15) Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

I trained with NATO  ,allied and foreign forces. I enjoyed most experiences. In general the NATO equipment was on par or all were pretty good. I recall going into the LEO2 for gunnery and was envious of the newer tank than what we had then with a a 120mm smoothbore. But it passed quickly and then we were scheduled to transition to the M1A1 in Nov 1987. I like the British Challenger as well and the older LEO 2s. In the foreign armies like Egypt and Jordan, seeing the upgraded M60 tanks was like seeing an old friend. Some of our allies had Russian tanks or variants like the M84 tank. They looked ok but not impressive overall. I did conduct exercises with most of NATO allies and was always  great experience. A bit harder with some countries as we were able to identify weaknesses and try to explain them at times was a challenge to their cultural views or perceptions.

16) What is your opinion of Russian and Soviet T-64/72/80 tanks?

Aside from engaging and destroying them in later wars, I can say that they were unimpressive by technology and protection as well as crew comfort. Many later variants had upgraded Armor and optics packages but no better results on the battlefield. Some were even improvements to the Russian Versions like the later model M84s. We as the western opponents were initially in awe of the low profile tanks and carriers, but after the first captured ones were provided from Israel to facing them on the battlefield, they proved to be easy targets. We also face them in opposing forces exercises using captured equipment with John Deere diesel engines as replacements for training.

Their only advantage in the Warsaw Pct alliance was a large number of tanks. We as TCs and leaders trained all of crews to engage and destroy up to ten tanks at a time! T80 and 90 contrary to Russian trolls arguments are far more inferior to more modern NATO tanks and easily destroyed. The myth that the Russian units(which are first line active army units) are not the best or trained elements is a fallacy as well as their ability to operate as a combined arms team. So the claim that a Iraqi tank crew would not fight like a Russian Tank crew has proven wrong. I do believe that  even with our M60A3s we would have done significant damage to the invaders as we knew every inch of the battle area we defended and had preplanned artillery, air and defensive positions . My soldiers were prepared to fight to the last tank and death to hold ,slow  and destroy the enemy advance and allow reinforcements to arrive in Europe.

17) By the 1980s Israel had used the M60 Patton in combat. Did you get any feedback on its performance or changes applied to variants?

Yes we were provided and shared all the results of combat and intelligence  on vehicles and performance. In reality the US equipment used by Isreal provided critical results on the performance of equipment in battle. The elimination of the cupola on newer tanks can be seen as a direct influence of the Israel battle experience.  With the addition of thermal sights laser range finder and a morse sophisticated computer fire control made the tanks a faster and more accurate weapons system from acquiring to destroying targets even in large numbers versus your forces.  

18) What is your opinion on the Israel upgrades (Magach - also sold to Turkey as M60T)?

I can not say much as the upgrade packages vary and some later variants even now have some good upgrades regarding gun and firing systems. I recall in 1987 there was a model with reactive armor for the Berlin brigade(No use giving them the newer tank) as they were encircled and would not last long if a Soviet attack had occurred. I can only say that I would probably prefer those variant  tanks if I had to choose versus to the T72  upgrades or even the T80( if an M1 version was not an option). I would believe they are going to work correctly and better than the opposing systems . As in all things a trained crew and effective combined arms tactical employment is central to success.

19) Is there an anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

As we discuss older tank systems we all must realize that some were very good for the time frame and some not, but if you are facing any tank you must be prepared to deal with them.

I recall in the first days after the signing of the Dayton peace accords for the former Yugoslavia war, I and my team were one of the first elements deployed as a light cavalry element with armored HMMUVs mounted with a large MG and also with a dragon AT missile in each vehicle. In our entry in early days we encountered every kind of armored vehicle from tanks of modern manufacture to older US and soviet tanks  from WW2 being used in the recent combat. In the first days my units HUMMVS were assigned to escort supplies and equipment on trucks to build base camps throughout in Bosnia /Herzegovina . We had cleared the combatants and disarmed them in the Pasovina Corridor area or so we thought. When we came down a curve as I and my vehicles were leading a large convoy of trucks we observed two T34s pull out of what we believed was a cleared area. These were Serb tanks from the militia and had two nervous TC on top looking at us.  My driver said sir pull out the camera and take a picture, I said no we will have our Anti-Tank system ready to engage! I also called in Cobra Attack helicopters that were also quickly dispatched. Lesson learned even an old tank can do damage if they choose to a lighter armored type vehicle especially with the element of surprise.  You must always have the best intelligence on the area you are operating in ,from ground and air assets.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former Pakistani Army Type-59 tanker
- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Interview with a former Pakistani Type-59 crewman

1. Hello N., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8en.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the Army of Pakistan?

Thanks dear,
I was commissioned in 1981 into Pakistan Armour Corps. I basically worked on Chinese tanks during my service. I briefly enjoyed working on US and Soviet tanks too. I retired as a full colonel in 2010.

2. What do you think were the strong and weak points of the Type-59 tanks when you served?

Firstly, the strong points ;
It's a medium weight robust tank.
Gun accuracy can reach upto 80-90% under ideal environments.
It can travel at a combat speed of 30 Kmph easily under favourable environment.
It had dual communication system having different frequencies.
IR is provided to the driver with a range upto 30 meters for driving at pitch dark night.
Low silhouette presents a smaller target.

Now some weak areas;

Gets bogged down easily in swampy areas due to low hull clearance.
In our times we had 90 and 100 mm rifled guns. Perhaps now these are upgraded to 120mm smooth bore. But, in our times it's effective range was approximately 2000 Ms only. And best results were around 1800 Ms only.
NBCW kit wasn't installed.
Air filters were too big and required frequent cleaning.
Weak torsion bars.

3. When training or during the fighting, at was the typical distance to the objective and speed of the tank when you fired the main gun? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

With T-59, one can fire easily upto 2000 Ms. The olders versions of our times couldn't fire while moving.
The longest range achieved is around 2800 Ms (Static) using HEAT ammunition.

4. How did you find the Type-59 construction quality? How did it compare to the Soviet T-55 you used before?

Well the quality of T-55 was superior to T-59. Infact, I think Chinese copied this from the Soviet series so the original characteristics and worth of Soviet tanks is surely better.

A copy is still a copy but later modified versions of T-59 series were far superior. T-55 was little different as it had IR for the driver and gunner in those days and was installed with drift indicator and a deep fording kit to cross water obstacles.
Torsion bars of Soviet tanks were superior to Chinese.

5. Soviet/Chinese tanks are often criticised because of the ergonomics. How did you find them in the Type-59?

I agree. Chinese tanks of our times were quite rough and uncomfortable. But, now with the reduction of one crew member due to autoloading system, it's spacious and more crew friendly.

6. What was the typical ammunition load (% HE/AP/HEAT)? Was there a recommended type when facing other tanks? (In Yugoslav Army HEAT was main ammunition against tanks at all ranges and angles, AP for flank shots)

Well typically we used AP and HEAT against armoured targets and HE and HESH against infantry and other soft targets. But as things changed, the calibre of main gun was upgraded to 120 mm and APFS & APFSDS could also be fired in the later versions.
Effective range was also increased to approximately 3000 Ms.
There weren't any recommendations for tank types and approximately 2/3rd ammunition was for armoured targets.

7. What was the typical rate of fire and how did it vary as you used the different ammunition bins?

In our times, firing was manual. Loader used to load the round after throwing the empty fired cartridge out. At best, one would have been extremely lucky to have fired three rounds on a target in one minute. Ordinarily, it used to be one or two rounds in a minute. Ammunition bins didn't pose any problems to the rate of fire.

6. How was the firing conducted at night? What was the effective range of the IR sight?

Chinese tanks (older versions of our times) couldn't fire at night except HE under illumination.
IR was initially installed for drivers only to drive the tank at night. It's range was just 30 Ms the most.

8. What was the maximum distance you covered in a day? Did the tank struggle to needed any extra maintenance?

T-59 tanks can easily do upto 100 KMs in a day at combat speeds. In desert being unopposed it can manoeuvre upto 200 KMs. Extra maintenance is required mostly in desert terrain as the air filters can get clogged easily due to sand.

9. What about when operating in local conditions, especially high altitude or deserts, did the tank cope well? Were there any local improvements (filters)?

It has performed well in mountains and deserts both. It was employed astride Afghanistan's mountain region where it performed well during the recent global war on terror.

10. What was the maximum speed you reached? And going backwards?

It could touch upto 50 Kmph but under ideal environment only. Typically, it would move at 30-35 Kmph.
In reverse, I guess it could barely touch 15 Kmph.

11. T-55 is seen as a simple tank, ideal for a conscript Army. How long do you think it takes to train a crew?

I think a period of three months is enough for basic school training but it must be supplemented by another 6 months outdoor training to attain proficiency.

12. Did you practice NBC scenarios? What was the procedure? How did it affect the crew performance?

In our times NBCW equipment was not installed in Chinese tanks. Now they have it in newer versions.

13. Type-59s and T-55s have been used in a number of conflicts. Did you get any feedback/information from other operators on tactics/improvements/combat lessons?

Not really because of the language differences in our various armies.

14. Are you surprised about the Type-59 longevity?

I am not surprised but glad perhaps. After all, it was our beloved ride in those youthful days.

15. You spent some time attached to a Saudi brigade. Can you describe this experience? How did you find the equipment and training? Was there any lesson you took home?

I was there in Saudi Arabia in mid 80s as a captain. We were having French AMX-30 tanks.
These tanks were light weight and extremely agile in desert terrain. It had superior ballistic control computerized firing system. The targets up to 3000 Ms could be easily engaged.
Training standards were acceptable. AMX tanks were user friendly, comfortable and extremely well built.

16. What about in Australia and US (Fort Knox)?

In Australia, I did my command and staff college course in early 90s at fort queenscliff, Victoria. It was a good experience. I remember seeing a demonstration by the Australian army leopard tanks. It was fabulous as the Aussie girls were there too enjoying and cheering the armour boys.

I did my advance armour course from fort knox, Kentucky, US in 90s. Here, I worked briefly on Abraham tanks and it's gunnery simulators. It was a good experience too. I attended US mechanized exercises in the state of Mississippi after the course which was a great experience too.

17. Is there any anecdote you would like to share before we conclude the interview?

To conclude, I will thank you dear for enabling me to scratch my head about my yester years and experiences. It was good to intract with you and am glad to see you folks taking interest in the 'king of the battle' affairs.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada
- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Graph of estimated Russian missile launches into Ukraine since the start of the war

I have put together this graph using estimates of Russian missile launches into Ukraine since the start of the war. This category includes Iskander, Tochka-U, Kh-101, Kalibr... by the 19th of April the estimated number reached 1,670. Any correction or extra data would be welcomed.

In order to understand the data, 2 trend lines have been added, linear and polynomial. The latter allows for the datato increase and decrease. The match is better but very robust in both cases.

Interview with a former Leopard 1 tank commander in the Army of Canada

A former Leopard 1 commander kindly agreed to an intervire. B. served in the Canadian Army during the Cold War in a Leopard 1, a tank that equipped many NATO Armies.

1) Hello S., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the Army of Canada?

I enrolled in the Canadian Army on graduation from high school in 1986 as an Officer Cadet.

In those days to be a combat arms officer you didn’t require a university degree.
After completing a generic all branches, Army Navy and Air Force Officer Candidate School
I went to the Royal Canadian Armour School to commence my training as an Armour Officer.
The school is a year long course focussed on leadership, armour tactics and combined arms operations. We spent most of the year on the Leo 1 but where qualified in the AVGP Cougar, think Lav 1 and the Lynx Command and Reconnaissance Vehicle as they served in our 4 regular Army Regiments.

On completion of the training I was commissioned and “badged” as an officer in the Royal Canadian Dragoons.

2) You served in a Leopard 1. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?

I loved the vehicle. It was fast mobile and ergonomic.

In 1989 it was already being replaced in Germany by the Leo 2 and was outclassed by the M1 but against pear T-72 I think it would hold its own. The stabilisation system was excellent and in its time the fire control system was state of the art.

Weak points in my time was a very basic night fighting capability that used low light TV and a first gen thermal optics. We had a built in spotlight but that would be certain death to use in combat.

Leopard 1 s where always know to be lightly armoured giving up armour for speed and mobility.

The role of Armour is to defeat the enemy with shock action. Battlefield mobility and firepower. I think the Leopard 1 filled that role.

3) The reliability of components and ease of maintenance is typically pointed out as an advantage (quick engine change). Can you comment on this?

Tank maintenance is tough but Krauss Maffei obviously thought about crew maintenance. We could do a lot of the work ourselves without calling for support.

With the support and guidance of our maintenance team the crews would conduct power pack changes, repair torsion bars and final drives without a lot of experience .

Soldiers who had served on the Centurion told us how maintenance heavy that way compared to the Leopard

4) When training, at was the typical distance to the target and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

Typically in gun camps we would fire from pads out at static targets and some movers.
With APFSDS-T typical engagements where from 1000 meters to 2500 max.  

The TKL7A3 Was incredibly accurate. A rifled 105 mm gun.  When bore sighting the gun, a good gunner would frequently keyhole TPDS round at 1000 m. I shot better groupings  with the tank at 1000M than I could with my rifle at 100.

We would shoot on the move on a special range at a variety of targets, tank infantry etc using the main gun and the coaxial machine gun. Those where all done in the Battle Sabot range of 1000 m or less. Very direct fire. Typically on a “stab” run we would be rolling at 10-30 kmph.

For soft skin vehicles and bunkers we would use HESH.The goal with HESH was for gunners to get second round kills. The fire control system which is ancient buy todays standards would compute wind, temperature speed of the target etc and usually a good gunner could pull it off.

In the semi indirect mode, I.e using the sights but elevating the canon like an artillery piece ranges where out to 4000 meters. As luck would have it on one day where they put a brand new target on a hill at 4000m, a retired 2 ½ ton truck.  Nailed it with a first round hit. Pure luck. Range control wasn’t happy as they hoped it would last longer than the first round fired on it.

5) How was the night firing conducted (IR sight/illumination flares)? Was there an approach more effective than the others? At what sort of distances could you open fire effectively?

As I mentioned the night fighting capability was first gen. The driver and loader had night optics.

The gunner had a really effective low light tv camera that both he and the commander could reference and there was the search light built into the turret. There was also a thermal capability that basically put a white cursor on anything hot but had no resolution to show shape and identify anything but a heat source. At that time though I doubt the opposition, a Soviet Motor Rifle Regiment, had as good as a capability. We where hover way behind our allies do to the Canadian government’s historic negligence of our Armed Forces.
It’s only the professionalism of our troops that keeps us relevant.

6) In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

 In the Canadian military we are always dealing with age in some component or another. We retired our Leo 1s after 35 years of service and pulled them out of mothballs for Afghanistan.

Largely because we had no internal air support in the form of attack helicopters or aircraft to support our troops. The old Leo’s did great service until replaced in the field with leased Leo 2’s.

7) What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APFDS/HE/Smoke)? Did you have specific rounds for certain targets (APFSDS for T-64/72/80)?

We generally carried a mix of Sabot APFSDS for tanks, Hesh for Other AFVs and targets and White Phosphorus for smoke. No Heat.

8) What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you went through the different bins?

You could probably get out six rounds in a minute but it would only be for show and inaccurate.

With a tank target the idea is a first round hit with Sabot then back off and move to an alternate firing position and reengage other targets. Against the numbers of the Soviet opposition you wouldn’t survive if you stuck around for a second shot so you had to make the first round count.

We had 12 rounds in a ready rack by the gun and another 40 in the hull beside the driver. Totally unarmoured so if a kinetic penetrator or heat round made it inside the hull it would be catastrophic.

9) What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Was the mobility suitable? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

Normally 25-35 Km’s. The Tank was great and generally required just crew track maintenance and lubrication..

10) Did you train for NBQ scenarios? What was the procedure?

In the 80s and 90s NBCW was a big worry. We would train in our “bunny” suits. Charcoal lined coveralls gas masks and rubber boots and gloves. The Leopard had an over pressure system to keep contaminants out but with no air conditioning this was awful. Summer in Canada is generally hot in the 30s and well above that in the AFV.

We where frequently randomly gassed with CS grenades to simulate NBC attack. On one occasion in a hide I was hit with a CS generator that the training staff had snuck up on us. That could rapidly gas a grid square. It was impressive and immediate.

We would also train for the nuclear role as well. You might here over the command radio net that a nuke was imminent. We would take up a hide, disconnect the batteries and radios to protect from EMP and button up the hatches while donning protective gear.

11) In the mid 90s Canada upgraded the Leo 1 to the C2 variant. Do you think it was a good idea or it would have been better to buy a new type.

A new type would have been better. Procurement for military equipment is a disaster in Canada.

To give you an idea We are still fielding Browning Hi power side arms that where manufactured for WWII. How hard would it be for the government to just buy a few pallets of Glocks. There has been thirty years and a war in Afghanistan and they are still dithering and nothing new is in sight yet. The Canadian Army knows how to get the most out of their equipment however everything has a shelf life and our soldiers deserve decent equipment that would give them a chance to survive on the battlefield.

12) Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

Canada has huge training areas that allow for excellent manoeuvre training. The British and Germans had full time battle groups training in Western Canada until recently. In my experience.

Personally I trained with American troops when I was a Recce officer in Fort Drum New York.

We where impressed by the Bradley Fighting Vehicle but thought it a bit large. The US Army had lots of resources and a different concept in that role. In their Cavalry with the Bradley they could fight for information. With us in our Lynx M113 Command and Reconnaissance Vehicle we focused a lot more on traditional observation and patrolling. Again we where limited by the equipment we had. Few thermal imagers but we had night observation and ground based radar.

It’s always good to train outside of your unit as you learn and see different concepts and approaches to similar problems.

13) Leopard 1 tanks were exported in large numbers. Did you get any feedback/information from other users?

We had exchange officers and NCOs from allied nations like the UK US and Australia.

The Aussies had Leopard 1 and loved it but upgraded to the M1 at the end of Leo 1 s service life.

It was a great tank in its time. Everyone I’ve talked since is totally enamoured with the Leopard 2.

14) Leopard 1 gave priority to mobility over armour. Do you think it was a good idea. Other NATO tanks (Chieftain) did the opposite.

It remained to be seen. Modern tanks are way more uparmoured than Leopard 1. It was found In Afghanistan to be very vulnerable to mines and IED’s. In its generation it was still lightly armoured compared to contemporary’s. What it gave up in armour it made up with speed and mobility. I thought at the time it could have had a longer service life if used in conjunction with reconnaissance units due to its outstanding manoeuvrability.

15) What is your opinion of Russian and Soviet T-64/72/80 tanks?

At the time we where scared of T-72 and 80. They where the biggest threat. The shear numbers of armour that the Soviets would push against us was daunting. We relied on our superior training and freedom of command to defeat them. As a tank troop leader we had a fairly simple mission but within that I had way more leeway to accomplish that than my Soviet counterpart.

We where confident that we could attrit them but knew any WWIII scenario we would have a life span of days.

16) Newer models of tanks have incorporated turbines and automatic loaders. What is your opinion of them?

Gas turbine engines are great because they are multi burners. Ideally you would use Jet fuel to run them but in an emergency they can run on Mogas, diesel and kerosene. The downside is the consumption and the heat produced which is hard to mask.

As to autoloaders I would prefer to have that extra crew member. An auto loader is complex and doesn’t give you that extra set of hands and eyes you need. The operator/loader in our tanks was an experienced crew member getting ready to become a crew commander. They would help with navigatio, radios and feed the gun.

A tank is a piece of heavy equipment and the whole crew needs to service it. In a hide we would have one crew member on sentry duty all the time the other three would be doing maintenance, resting or off getting orders or preparing them. With three crew only it would be way more fatiguing crewing a MBT in my opinion.

17) Is there an anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

I think there is definitely a place in the modern world for MBT’s. But like all the combat arms none survives on its own. We need infantry especially in built up areas, artillery for on call support and suppression, air, coms, maintenance etc.

I’d hate to be going up against tanks with just shoulder launched anti armour weapons or in a tank in a city without infantry clearing the flanks. Afghanistan showed the Canadian Army that we still needed the capability and skills of Tankers and couldn’t survive in just a Cavalry and light infantry role without some heavy armour in support.

My time as a tanker fills me with great pride and I am still passionate about it even though I am no longer directly involved. Being a member of a tank crew was highly rewarding and great fun.

I am an airline Captain now but still get a thrill when I see a Tank on the news or in a display and think, I served on those. I guess I like big machines.
 
Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former Merkava tanker
- Interview with a former M60A1 tanker
- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes

Interview with a former M60A1 tanker

A former M60A1 tanker has kindly accepted an interview for the blog. S. served in the 5th Infantry Division in one of the last units to use the M60A1.

1) Hello S., many thanks for accepting an interview with alejandro-8.blogspot.com. Could you provide an introduction to your service in the US Army?

I was trained on the M60A3 (TTS), but commanded an M60A1 tank platoon in the 5th Infantry Division at Ft. Polk, LA from 1985-1987. After that I did staff work at Battalion HQ from 1987-1988 after which I went back to civilian life.

2) You served in a M60 Patton. What was your impression of the vehicle, and the strong/weak points?

The M60 was a good solid tank in it's day.  It had a high profile which was a tactical disadvantage, but my biggest problem was maintenance issues and trying to keep 4 tanks running.  This was due largely to the age of the vehicles.  Mine was the last M60A1 unit in the US Army and we were anxiously waiting to be equipped with the M1s while trying to keep the M60s up and running.  The M60 was extremely easy to drive and the turret controls and gunsights were also excellent.  My biggest complaint was the commander's cupola with the M-85 Machine gun.  The machine gun was subject to frequent jams and was hard to clear due to the confines of the cupola.  It was also VERY difficult to aim accurately.  It's easy to see why the US Army chose to abandon the commander's cupola design feature on the M1 models.

3) You went from a M60A3 (TTS) with thermal sight to a M60A1 with IR sight. How did they compare?

The M60A1 and M60A3 were identical except laser rangefinder and the thermal sights on the A3.  The thermal sights were a big help at night or in bad weather, especially fog, but I found the M17A1 coincidental rangefinder to be as fast and accurate as the laser rangefinder to a trained commander.  In addition in bad weather, such as rain or fog, as long as you could see the target, the coincidental range finder was less subject to weather based errors, as the mark 1 human eyeball could adjust for weather effects that might "fool" the laser.

4) What was the weather condition that affected the thermal sight the most?

The thermal sights did remarkably well and were a BIG help in bad weather. The only weather related issues on the A3 was the laser range finder that could get fooled, especially by reflecting off raindrops.  But the problem was really very minor overall.

5) Other M60A1 veterans stated that for night fighting they preferred flares over the IR projector. What is your opinion?

This is 100% true.  We were training to fight a near-peer adversary (Warsaw Pact), so the use of the IR searchlight was considered practically suicidal because IR sights were ubiquitous technology by that time.  Illuminating a target with an IR searchlight would have had the effect of giving away the illuminating tanks position almost as much as using a white light searchlight, without having the "dazzle" effect of blinding your target.  So star shells were much more practical.  For that reason, few of our battalion's IR searchlights even worked while I was in the unit and there was not much effort do get them into working condition.  As a side note, I have one of the few working searchlights and occasionally used it in the white light mode to dazzle "opfor" opponents as a gag when they would send their scouts to harass us at night.  Of course I would just "flash" them with the searchlight as extended shining it could potentially damage their eyesight due to the intensity of the light.

6) When training, at was the typical distance to the target and speed of the tank when you fired? And the longest distance at which you ever fired?

In training, it depended on the type of training and which post I was at.  I was based at Fort Polk, Louisiana so, aside from the gunnery ranges, the terrain was heavily wooded with scattered swamps.  As a result force on force exercises, using the MILES system took place at VERY close ranges, often less than 100 meters.  In such conditions I really appreciated the M60s quick turret traverse.  You could sling the turret around almost as fast as turning your head to look at a target.  It also brought to mind the vulnerability of tanks to infantry with short range hand held AT weapons.  In live fire gunnery exercises we usually trained to engage targets from 800 - 2000 meters.  When we deployed to the NTC (National Training Center) at Ft. Irwin California it was very different.  There it was dessert terrain and engagement ranges could be out to about 2400+ meters with very good chances to hit.  Interestingly though, even in the dessert, taking advantage of wadis and folds in the terrain, it was also often possible to end up in short range engagements.

7) In terms of maintenance, was there any component or system that was more delicate? Were there any issues with the supply chain?

The components of a tank had to be very robust.  The most delicate piece of my equipment actually tended to be my radios, which frequently malfunctioned.  Parts for the tank had to be ordered through an elaborate ordering system that I never really got used to, but spare parts did not seem hard to get.  The only exceptions might be parts for the searchlight, as I already discussed and the dozer blade which was on each of the company XO's tanks, but none of which ever worked.

8) What was the typical ammunition configuration load (% APDS/HESH/Smoke)? Did you have specific rounds for certain targets (APFSDS for T-64/72/80)?

As far as ammo load, I was never deployed for combat, so any rounds we had were training rounds and only enough to complete the exercises needed the gunnery tables.  Ammo of course costs money, so we never had to decide how many of which type.  As far as training, we were given HEAT, APDS, and WP(smoke) rounds.  Which type to use against which target was the individual tank commander's prerogative as the situation dictated.  We were trained that generally enemy tanks got sabot and APCs HEAT, but the ballistics/penetration game was always an issue.  The sabot round was more accurate at long range, but lost penetration the farther out you got, while HEAT had the same penetration effects regardless of range.  In addition, we trained to shoot APCS with the 50 cal at short ranges.

9) What was the maximum rate of fire you achieved? How did it change as you went through the different bins?

The maximum ROF was something we never really tried to achieve, so IDK what it would have been.  We never put more than 2 or 3 rounds on a target, but a good loader could probably reload in a few seconds if he was ready with the second round while the first one went downrange.  The order of reload was normally the ones on the turret floor first, then the ones from the bustle rack.  Finally the ones along the driver in the hull could be brought out when you ran out.  The only time that happened was in live fire exercises at the NTS.  There I learned how difficult it would be to reload from the hull during combat, because the turret had to be rotated to the side and the gun elevated so that the loader could get the ones out of the hull.  Not very practical in combat.  The only other issue with all this was the loader's pre-planning.  Like I said, the turret floor rounds would be used first, but if the loader had gone through all the HEAT rounds and wanted another one, he would go to the bustle rack rounds, even if there was still Sabot on the floor.  The exception would probably been the rounds in the hull as it would be more practical to use whatever was in the hull, even if it was the wrong type of ammo, instead of going through the drill to go after the hull rounds.

10) What was the maximum distance you covered in a day during deployments or exercises? Was the mobility suitable? Did the tank cope well or needed extra maintenance?

I don't know how far we rolled in a night march.  IT seemed like forever, but was probably only about 40 miles (60km).  Maintenance was always an issue and breakdowns were very common.  Most of these were suspension, rather than power train issues.  Once the tank got rolling on the road, the diesel engines and transmissions bore the march very well, but the most common problems was overheating hubs due to insufficient lubricant or track problems due to worn parts of the track.  Once you got off road into the much, the engines and transmissions would feel the strain and and malfunctions from over stressing them would become more common - especially over time.

11) The M60 is one of the largest (and most comfortable) tanks. Do you think it was worth it (it was also a larger target)?

The M60 was nice and roomy.  Of course if it had been loaded with the full 63 rounds it would have been less so, but the driver's position was particularly large and comfortable.  In combat the effort is made to keep yourself hull down, so that might reduce the high profile issues.  IDK because no one ever shot at me.  The Israelis used it with success in 1973 and I never read anything negative about the high profile, but of course history is written by survivors, so the guy who got picked off for being to tall a target might have a different opinion. ;-)

12) The M19 commander cupola is one element which has not proved popular, and some operators removed it. What do you think?

The cupola was worthless.  Good riddance on the new tanks.

13) Did you practice NBC scenarios? What was the procedure? How did it affect the crew performance?

The NBC training was very common.  We hated it, but got used to it.In total, It didn't really effect us much inside the tank.  It was good to be a tanker rather than the poor bloody infantry because we had a gas particulator system that could be hooked into our gas masks, or even run into your clothing to provide do-it-yourself air-conditioning in the hot weather of Louisiana or the California dessert.  We trained mostly in MOPP-1 or MOPP-4, if I remember correctly (it's been decades).  MOPP 4 was fully masked with gloves and those annoying little booties and, of course, chemical protection suits.  MOPP-1 was wearing chemical protection suits, but not wearing the masks (on the face) we always had the masks hanging in a satchel around our shoulders, 24/7.

14) During the Cold War the US Army would organise REFORGER exercises to deploy troops in Europe. Did you participate in one? How was your experience?

I never got to deploy to Germany.  I spent years studying German in school, but have never been there to this day.  :'(

15) You served in an infantry division. What was the typical scenario in training (Infantry support, counter attack, armed reconnaissance)?

Although I was in what was technically an "infantry" division, it was a mech division and at that point in time the mech divisions were equipped almost the same as an armored division.  I think the TO&E of a mech division had 5 infantry battalions and 4 tank battalions as opposed to an armored division having 4 infantry and 5 tank battalions, but the emphasis was ALWAYS combined arms down to the company level, which we called teams.  At the battalion level they were called task forces and would be formed by cross attaching infantry companies into tank battalions and visa versa.  Then the companies would exchange infantry and tank platoons in a similar manner to make either mech heavy or tank heavy organizations, either 2 tank and one infantry or 2 infantry and one tank.  We worked closely with our "crunchies" as we called the infantry and usually we cross attached with the same formations and the same men and got to know each other well.

16) The Patton family has a reputation for being an ideal tank for a conscript Army, being sturdy and reliable. Would you agree? How long do you think it takes to train a crew?

I would generally agree that the M60 was easy to operate.  Troops get trained at their AIT (advanced individual training), the next step after boot camp, so would come to the unit already trained.  Then it was just a matter of getting them integrated into their team position on the tank and platoon.  They would start out as loaders, then move up to driver, then gunners, then commanders.  By the time they became tank commanders many were already E5s or E6-s and had been to NCO school and were ready to become platoon sergeants if the need arose.

17) Did you have the opportunity to train with other Armies? What were your impressions? Did you like/dislike any specific equipment?

I never got to train with other armies.  At my armor officer school at Fort Knox, we did have students from Thailand and Morocco and got to know them.  The Thai officers were very professional and businesslike.  The Moroccans were very friendly and fun to play around with, but I'm not sue I would have wanted to followed them into battle.  Having said that, I'm not going to pretend that the few officers I met there were representative of their nations officer corps as a whole.

18) What is your opinion of Russian and Soviet T-64/72/80 tanks?

I think the Soviet tanks were excellent.  They had their strengths and weaknesses.  I think we would have kicked their butts had we gone to battle with them, but that is likely youthful bravado.  The main difference would have been our crew quality and training rather than technical differences.  Your question regards the T64/T-73/T80s specifically.  Those tanks were a step up from the M60 generation, which was really made to fight the T-55/T-62 generation.  However, again, the M60s would have given a good account of itself and I would rather be in the tank with the better crew than the one with better tech specs.

19) By the 1980s Israel had used the M60 Patton in combat. Did you get any feedback on its performance or changes applied to variants?

My only input from the Israeli experience using the M60 was from reading Israeli accounts.  Those were issues handled by people high up the chain of command than me, but we knew that the eventual adoption of Blazer reactive armor, (which we didn't have yet) had come out of the Israeli experience.

20) What is your opinion on the Israel upgrades (Magach - also sold to Turkey as M60T)?

Again, my knowledge of the Israeli modifications to the M-60 is no greater than anyone else who can read accounts.  Removing the cupola was probably the best mod to any American tank, but the use of a ranging machine gun seemed redundant to to the very accurate coincidental range finders we had.

21) Newer models of tanks have incorporated turbines and automatic loaders. What is your opinion of them?

I have followed the auto loader debate after I left the service.  Some of the newer ones seem to be very good.  The early ones don't seem to have been worth it.  It's just another thing to break down and maintain.  the most important thing is that tanks require a LOT of maintenance and missing the fourth crewman on the tank would have been a HUGE loss.  Not only for maintenance, but guard duty and special tasks that the 1st sergeant was constantly taking our people to run supplies and this that or the other duty.  As to the gas turbine engine, I think it's a HUGE mistake.  the gas turbine engine would be VERY useful if you challenged the enemy to race around the track at Talladega Motor Speedway.  In reality, tanks never run around the battlefield at full speed.  A tanks ability to get up and move from a parked position is much more important than top speed.  In that regard, the gas turbine engine might be helpful, but I don't think it's worth it in the long run.  The gas turbines use a LOT of fuel very quickly. This in turn creates a greater need for more logistical support from vulnerable fuel trucks.  An M1 parked from lack of fuel is far less effective than an old M60 rolling along on its diesel engine.  The higher heat signature of the gas turbine is offset by the plume of black exhaust smoke when you mash the accelerator - so that's basically a wash.

22) Is there an anecdote you would like to share before we finish the interview?

My most memorable anecdote has little to do with tanking and more to do with being young and stupid.  I was at armor school for my 23d birthday.  My friends took me out and we got totally drink at the officers club, or maybe it was some seedy bar off post.  I don't remember.  The next day we engaged ion tactical exercises while I had a horrible hang-over.  I learned 2 things.  1)  A tank is no where you want to be with a hangover.  the tank rolls over the ground going up and down with the terrain while at the same time the turret goes around and around.  2)  Do you know about the hard plastic shall velcroed to the top of the combat vehicle crewman's head gear to absorbe blows from hitting your head inside the vehicle?  Well it also makes an ready use puke bucket to throw things outside the tank in case you're stupid enough to get in a tank with a hangover.

Other interviews:

I am always looking for more veterans, active members or people related with the defence industry to accept interviews. If you enjoyed reading the material and would be happy to accept an anonimous interview you can get in contact with me. My e-mail can be found in this link at the heading. Otherwise leave a message in the comment sections.

- Interview with a former M60/Abrams tanker
- Interview with a former Olifant tanker
- Interview with a former Chieftain tanker
- Interview with a former M551 Sheridan driver
- Interview with a former Centurion tank driver in the Army of Sweden
- Interview with a former Centurion tanker in the Army of Denmark
- Interview with a USAF pilot who flew the F-106 Delta Dart
- Interview with an US Army M48A5/M60A1 veteran tanker
- Interview with a former British artilleryman and veteran of the Gulf War
- Former M60 tanker in the Army of Austria
- Former Chieftain crew member
- Former Chieftain gunner
- AMX30 commander of the Army of France
- NCO of the Army of Serbia 
- Former crew member of Challenger 2
- Former Leclerc commander
- T-72 driver in Czech Army  
- US Army M60 tank crewmman
- Interview with D., former US Army tanker with experience in the M60 and M1 Abrams
- Interview with Stefan Kotsch, former NVA/Bundeswehr tanker  
- Interview with former Marine and writer Kenneth Estes